The Legal Challenge to Proposition 8

My first inclination to a legal challenge of constitutional amendment is skepticism. But the more I look into both the court ruling by the California Supreme Court and the issue of the changing the California’s Constitution the more I recognize that the opponents of Proposition 8 not only have a strong case, they are very likely to win.

The genesis for this belief is that court’s ruling itself which is far stronger than a typical court ruling. They are argued two things. First that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry and second that the underlying law violated the state’s equal protection clause.

Here is the first part of the ruling:

“We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

Now, what has happened is that the voters by a majority have supposedly altered the constitution to deal with that issue.

But one of the questions is whether the voters can do that by majority vote. For instance, forget the federal constitution and federal courts for a moment, could the voters of California pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw freedom of speech in California? Or could they pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw miscegenation? Many legal experts believe they could not do that. And because of the how the California Supreme Court ruled in May, they would have to essentially do that for the majority on the Supreme Court set the bar that high by ruling the right to marry “substantive legal rights.”

McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333 ruled:

“The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”

From several articles I have read, there is a substantial amount of case law on the issue of a revision not being able to be placed on the ballot by the signature process. Some of that case law is pretty recent. For instance, the California Supreme Court ruled in 1990, that voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. A constitutional revision requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot. That did not occur.

That leaves open the interpretation as to whether this is in fact a constitutional revision.

A 1990 court ruling suggests that it might be: “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process.”

Given the scope of the courts ruling, to this layman, it would appear that any change to the same-sex marriage law would in fact constitute such a revision to the constitution.

And let us think about that for a second. From the state’s perspective, do you believe that the voters by the signature and initiative process could overturn constitutional protections for free speech or outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? That seems doubtful. Now you may not agree with the Supreme Court ruling, but right now that is the law of the land and their interpretation of the right to gay marriage clearly rises to that level. Given the strength of that ruling it seems difficult to imagine that the same court would allow this constitutional amendment to stand.

However, just in case, the challengers will be arguing even if Proposition 8 deals with the marriage portion of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it does not address the equal protection portion of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The challenge would assert that the state constitution is now in conflict with itself–part saying that same-sex marriage is illegal and the other part says that same banning sex marriage is in violation of the equal protection clause.

The interesting question for now will be, will the courts stay the implementation of the amendment while the legal process plays out and what happens to the people already married.

The backers of Proposition 8 believe that the law would invalidate the marriages performed between June 16 and Election Day. Attorney General Jerry Brown disagrees.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

“And Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represents the state in court, said he would defend the legality of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in the 5 1/2 months leading up to election day – even though sponsors of Prop. 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages. That controversy is also likely to end up before California’s high court and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It is my belief that the courts will hold that these same-sex marriages entered into are valid,” Brown said in a statement. He said he would defend Prop. 8 against legal challenges, but would also defend “the marriages contracted during the time that same-sex marriage was the law in California.”

Roughly 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California between June 16 and November 4, 2008. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, unfortunately for those individuals, a very harrowing time, no doubt.

I want to reiterate what I said a few days ago. Backers of proposition 8 point to the fact that they have now won twice, votes before the voters, as though that were somehow to stand up for all times. They of course will not acknowledge that the first time it came before the voters, the ban passed by large margins and this time it was a nail biter. I would wager to guess the next time this comes before the voters, it probably will not pass. Time is not on the side of the opponents of Proposition 8. They were able to win this largely through peripheral issues and mobilizing a diverse coalition of opponents. However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

192 Comments

  1. Mike Hart

    I think that you are correct. Moreover, I think that the “Yes on 8” folks are in for a rough ride in court. It makes me smile thinking of all the polyester-suit wearing bible-thumpers who pushed for this mess sputtering with indignation as they realize that “Governor Moonbeam” will be their legally required advocate!

  2. Mike Hart

    I think that you are correct. Moreover, I think that the “Yes on 8” folks are in for a rough ride in court. It makes me smile thinking of all the polyester-suit wearing bible-thumpers who pushed for this mess sputtering with indignation as they realize that “Governor Moonbeam” will be their legally required advocate!

  3. Mike Hart

    I think that you are correct. Moreover, I think that the “Yes on 8” folks are in for a rough ride in court. It makes me smile thinking of all the polyester-suit wearing bible-thumpers who pushed for this mess sputtering with indignation as they realize that “Governor Moonbeam” will be their legally required advocate!

  4. Mike Hart

    I think that you are correct. Moreover, I think that the “Yes on 8” folks are in for a rough ride in court. It makes me smile thinking of all the polyester-suit wearing bible-thumpers who pushed for this mess sputtering with indignation as they realize that “Governor Moonbeam” will be their legally required advocate!

  5. wdf

    What are the chances that this goes to the US Supreme Court? And what are the chances that the current US Supreme Court would uphold same-sex marriages? They don’t seem like a sympathetic bunch on this issue.

  6. wdf

    What are the chances that this goes to the US Supreme Court? And what are the chances that the current US Supreme Court would uphold same-sex marriages? They don’t seem like a sympathetic bunch on this issue.

  7. wdf

    What are the chances that this goes to the US Supreme Court? And what are the chances that the current US Supreme Court would uphold same-sex marriages? They don’t seem like a sympathetic bunch on this issue.

  8. wdf

    What are the chances that this goes to the US Supreme Court? And what are the chances that the current US Supreme Court would uphold same-sex marriages? They don’t seem like a sympathetic bunch on this issue.

  9. Anonymous

    “Given the scope of the courts ruling, to this layman…”

    Slate on-line magazine for Nov. 6 had an article written by NYU School of Law’s Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law. While adding his own personal belief that same-sex marriage will ultimately become legal in the US, he sees only two LEGAL avenues now for the proponents of same-sex marriage, getting this constitutional amendment overturned in federal court(ultimately the US Supreme Court) or reversed by another CA initiative constitutional amendment.

  10. Anonymous

    “Given the scope of the courts ruling, to this layman…”

    Slate on-line magazine for Nov. 6 had an article written by NYU School of Law’s Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law. While adding his own personal belief that same-sex marriage will ultimately become legal in the US, he sees only two LEGAL avenues now for the proponents of same-sex marriage, getting this constitutional amendment overturned in federal court(ultimately the US Supreme Court) or reversed by another CA initiative constitutional amendment.

  11. Anonymous

    “Given the scope of the courts ruling, to this layman…”

    Slate on-line magazine for Nov. 6 had an article written by NYU School of Law’s Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law. While adding his own personal belief that same-sex marriage will ultimately become legal in the US, he sees only two LEGAL avenues now for the proponents of same-sex marriage, getting this constitutional amendment overturned in federal court(ultimately the US Supreme Court) or reversed by another CA initiative constitutional amendment.

  12. Anonymous

    “Given the scope of the courts ruling, to this layman…”

    Slate on-line magazine for Nov. 6 had an article written by NYU School of Law’s Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law. While adding his own personal belief that same-sex marriage will ultimately become legal in the US, he sees only two LEGAL avenues now for the proponents of same-sex marriage, getting this constitutional amendment overturned in federal court(ultimately the US Supreme Court) or reversed by another CA initiative constitutional amendment.

  13. Anonymous

    The fact that the 4 Supreme Court justices had to invoke “suspect” discrimination class arguments plus invocation of “strict scrutiny” subjective judicial decisions makes a mockery of the claim that this Supreme Court ruling addresses civil-rights equal to the weight of historical denial of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights. As such, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not rise to the level requiring a constitutional revision vote.

  14. Anonymous

    The fact that the 4 Supreme Court justices had to invoke “suspect” discrimination class arguments plus invocation of “strict scrutiny” subjective judicial decisions makes a mockery of the claim that this Supreme Court ruling addresses civil-rights equal to the weight of historical denial of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights. As such, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not rise to the level requiring a constitutional revision vote.

  15. Anonymous

    The fact that the 4 Supreme Court justices had to invoke “suspect” discrimination class arguments plus invocation of “strict scrutiny” subjective judicial decisions makes a mockery of the claim that this Supreme Court ruling addresses civil-rights equal to the weight of historical denial of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights. As such, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not rise to the level requiring a constitutional revision vote.

  16. Anonymous

    The fact that the 4 Supreme Court justices had to invoke “suspect” discrimination class arguments plus invocation of “strict scrutiny” subjective judicial decisions makes a mockery of the claim that this Supreme Court ruling addresses civil-rights equal to the weight of historical denial of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights. As such, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not rise to the level requiring a constitutional revision vote.

  17. Anonymous

    Interesting how, as LA Times reports, black voters by overwhelming majority supported Prop. 8. It was not sold to them very well by latte-drinking gay marriage advocates, who find it much easier to gain mainstream acceptance than black civil rights warriors ever did.

  18. Anonymous

    Interesting how, as LA Times reports, black voters by overwhelming majority supported Prop. 8. It was not sold to them very well by latte-drinking gay marriage advocates, who find it much easier to gain mainstream acceptance than black civil rights warriors ever did.

  19. Anonymous

    Interesting how, as LA Times reports, black voters by overwhelming majority supported Prop. 8. It was not sold to them very well by latte-drinking gay marriage advocates, who find it much easier to gain mainstream acceptance than black civil rights warriors ever did.

  20. Anonymous

    Interesting how, as LA Times reports, black voters by overwhelming majority supported Prop. 8. It was not sold to them very well by latte-drinking gay marriage advocates, who find it much easier to gain mainstream acceptance than black civil rights warriors ever did.

  21. Anonymous

    “of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights”

    Because you seem to bring up the term “substantive” frequently and with emphasis, maybe you can educate some of us non-lawyer types as to what you mean by substantive.

    As it is, I have seen committed same-sex couples denied the civil recognition of being in (functionally) a marital-like state, and thus be denied standard insurance rights through their employers, hospital visitation rights, etc. To me these sound reminiscent of certain civil rights that were denied to blacks before the 1960’s.

  22. Anonymous

    “of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights”

    Because you seem to bring up the term “substantive” frequently and with emphasis, maybe you can educate some of us non-lawyer types as to what you mean by substantive.

    As it is, I have seen committed same-sex couples denied the civil recognition of being in (functionally) a marital-like state, and thus be denied standard insurance rights through their employers, hospital visitation rights, etc. To me these sound reminiscent of certain civil rights that were denied to blacks before the 1960’s.

  23. Anonymous

    “of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights”

    Because you seem to bring up the term “substantive” frequently and with emphasis, maybe you can educate some of us non-lawyer types as to what you mean by substantive.

    As it is, I have seen committed same-sex couples denied the civil recognition of being in (functionally) a marital-like state, and thus be denied standard insurance rights through their employers, hospital visitation rights, etc. To me these sound reminiscent of certain civil rights that were denied to blacks before the 1960’s.

  24. Anonymous

    “of SUBSTANTIVE equal rights”

    Because you seem to bring up the term “substantive” frequently and with emphasis, maybe you can educate some of us non-lawyer types as to what you mean by substantive.

    As it is, I have seen committed same-sex couples denied the civil recognition of being in (functionally) a marital-like state, and thus be denied standard insurance rights through their employers, hospital visitation rights, etc. To me these sound reminiscent of certain civil rights that were denied to blacks before the 1960’s.

  25. David M. Greenwald

    As a non-lawyer myself…

    “Substantive” rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. “Procedural” rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

    Strict scrutiny clause which was brought up by anonymous above:

    “Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.”

    That’s directly from the court decision. I fail to understand how according to anonymous that makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights. I look forward to an explanation of how the two are in contradiction.

  26. David M. Greenwald

    As a non-lawyer myself…

    “Substantive” rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. “Procedural” rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

    Strict scrutiny clause which was brought up by anonymous above:

    “Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.”

    That’s directly from the court decision. I fail to understand how according to anonymous that makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights. I look forward to an explanation of how the two are in contradiction.

  27. David M. Greenwald

    As a non-lawyer myself…

    “Substantive” rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. “Procedural” rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

    Strict scrutiny clause which was brought up by anonymous above:

    “Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.”

    That’s directly from the court decision. I fail to understand how according to anonymous that makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights. I look forward to an explanation of how the two are in contradiction.

  28. David M. Greenwald

    As a non-lawyer myself…

    “Substantive” rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. “Procedural” rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

    Strict scrutiny clause which was brought up by anonymous above:

    “Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.”

    That’s directly from the court decision. I fail to understand how according to anonymous that makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights. I look forward to an explanation of how the two are in contradiction.

  29. Anonymous

    ‘….makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights.”

    “mockery” may be a bit much, I admit; DPD isn’t the only one who “goes off the deep end” sometimes. My issue is that “suspect” discriminatory classifications and strict scrutiny appear more prone to judicial subjective interpretation which can be abused to support the idea that the CA Supreme Court has the authority to rule from the bench on the direction and speed of CA societal values.

    The difference in judicial “weight” between SUBSTANTIVE equal rights issues and the “right” to have same-sex civil-unions defined by the State as a marriage will be weighed by the 7 Supreme Court judges. One more judge needs to join the minority of 3 and conclude that this difference is sufficient to justify the constitutional amendment process as valid when considered along with a majority vote of CA voters (now X2) supporting the concept embodied in Prop 8 plus support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states.

  30. Anonymous

    ‘….makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights.”

    “mockery” may be a bit much, I admit; DPD isn’t the only one who “goes off the deep end” sometimes. My issue is that “suspect” discriminatory classifications and strict scrutiny appear more prone to judicial subjective interpretation which can be abused to support the idea that the CA Supreme Court has the authority to rule from the bench on the direction and speed of CA societal values.

    The difference in judicial “weight” between SUBSTANTIVE equal rights issues and the “right” to have same-sex civil-unions defined by the State as a marriage will be weighed by the 7 Supreme Court judges. One more judge needs to join the minority of 3 and conclude that this difference is sufficient to justify the constitutional amendment process as valid when considered along with a majority vote of CA voters (now X2) supporting the concept embodied in Prop 8 plus support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states.

  31. Anonymous

    ‘….makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights.”

    “mockery” may be a bit much, I admit; DPD isn’t the only one who “goes off the deep end” sometimes. My issue is that “suspect” discriminatory classifications and strict scrutiny appear more prone to judicial subjective interpretation which can be abused to support the idea that the CA Supreme Court has the authority to rule from the bench on the direction and speed of CA societal values.

    The difference in judicial “weight” between SUBSTANTIVE equal rights issues and the “right” to have same-sex civil-unions defined by the State as a marriage will be weighed by the 7 Supreme Court judges. One more judge needs to join the minority of 3 and conclude that this difference is sufficient to justify the constitutional amendment process as valid when considered along with a majority vote of CA voters (now X2) supporting the concept embodied in Prop 8 plus support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states.

  32. Anonymous

    ‘….makes any kind of “mockery” out of claims that the SCOC is addressing substantive rights.”

    “mockery” may be a bit much, I admit; DPD isn’t the only one who “goes off the deep end” sometimes. My issue is that “suspect” discriminatory classifications and strict scrutiny appear more prone to judicial subjective interpretation which can be abused to support the idea that the CA Supreme Court has the authority to rule from the bench on the direction and speed of CA societal values.

    The difference in judicial “weight” between SUBSTANTIVE equal rights issues and the “right” to have same-sex civil-unions defined by the State as a marriage will be weighed by the 7 Supreme Court judges. One more judge needs to join the minority of 3 and conclude that this difference is sufficient to justify the constitutional amendment process as valid when considered along with a majority vote of CA voters (now X2) supporting the concept embodied in Prop 8 plus support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states.

  33. klb

    If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?

  34. klb

    If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?

  35. klb

    If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?

  36. klb

    If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?

  37. Anonymous

    “…could the voters of California pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw freedom of speech in California? Or could they pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw miscegenation? Many legal experts believe they could not do that…”

    “…However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality….”

    So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???

  38. Anonymous

    “…could the voters of California pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw freedom of speech in California? Or could they pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw miscegenation? Many legal experts believe they could not do that…”

    “…However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality….”

    So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???

  39. Anonymous

    “…could the voters of California pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw freedom of speech in California? Or could they pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw miscegenation? Many legal experts believe they could not do that…”

    “…However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality….”

    So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???

  40. Anonymous

    “…could the voters of California pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw freedom of speech in California? Or could they pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw miscegenation? Many legal experts believe they could not do that…”

    “…However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality….”

    So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???

  41. Elmer Gantry

    “If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?”

    So true. If traditional marriage is a good thing, then I can think of no greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing divorce to happen. There are even some Biblical passages that are specifically very critical of divorce. So religious fundamentalists shouldn’t have a problem getting behind this one.

    A comment on another article on this blog mentioned that the Philipines currently outlaw divorce, so this is not outside of the realm of reality.

    We can always allow for anulments if there are some valid technicalities that have to be considered.

  42. Elmer Gantry

    “If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?”

    So true. If traditional marriage is a good thing, then I can think of no greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing divorce to happen. There are even some Biblical passages that are specifically very critical of divorce. So religious fundamentalists shouldn’t have a problem getting behind this one.

    A comment on another article on this blog mentioned that the Philipines currently outlaw divorce, so this is not outside of the realm of reality.

    We can always allow for anulments if there are some valid technicalities that have to be considered.

  43. Elmer Gantry

    “If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?”

    So true. If traditional marriage is a good thing, then I can think of no greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing divorce to happen. There are even some Biblical passages that are specifically very critical of divorce. So religious fundamentalists shouldn’t have a problem getting behind this one.

    A comment on another article on this blog mentioned that the Philipines currently outlaw divorce, so this is not outside of the realm of reality.

    We can always allow for anulments if there are some valid technicalities that have to be considered.

  44. Elmer Gantry

    “If the proponents of Prop 8 believe that “traditional marriage” is threatened by same-sex marriage, several of us think that we should get an initiative going to make divorce illegal in California. After all, it poses an even more immediate threat to “traditional marriage”. Maybe the Catholics got it right this time. After Prop 8 I bet we could get enough signatures to get a statewide ban on divorce on the next ballot. What do you think those “traditionalists” would do?”

    So true. If traditional marriage is a good thing, then I can think of no greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing divorce to happen. There are even some Biblical passages that are specifically very critical of divorce. So religious fundamentalists shouldn’t have a problem getting behind this one.

    A comment on another article on this blog mentioned that the Philipines currently outlaw divorce, so this is not outside of the realm of reality.

    We can always allow for anulments if there are some valid technicalities that have to be considered.

  45. oops!

    “So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???”

    Gosh, darnit! You caught us! It is so hard to pull a fast one over on you.

  46. oops!

    “So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???”

    Gosh, darnit! You caught us! It is so hard to pull a fast one over on you.

  47. oops!

    “So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???”

    Gosh, darnit! You caught us! It is so hard to pull a fast one over on you.

  48. oops!

    “So, let me see if I understand you correctly, As long as the majority disagrees with you, the constitutionally granted right are unalterable, but given “a matter of time before the voters as a majority support” your view. Then and only then will the constitutional revision/amendment be allowed by you and your like minded readers.
    mmmmm, sounds like authoritarianism to me???”

    Gosh, darnit! You caught us! It is so hard to pull a fast one over on you.

  49. Anonymous

    Another interesting ” wrinkle” is that those who brought the case to the CA Supreme Court, which resulted in the 4-3 decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, argued that the original successful citizen initiative(60-40 approval majority) should be voided because it required a constitutional revision which cannot be approved by majority vote. The CA Supreme Court made no reference to this argument in their decision. If they believed that the need-for-a revision argument was sound, wouldn’t they have included this as part of the basis for their decision since that was one of the main arguments presented to them. We can assume from their silence that they did not AT THAT TIME accept the argument that a constitutional revision process was necessary.

  50. Anonymous

    Another interesting ” wrinkle” is that those who brought the case to the CA Supreme Court, which resulted in the 4-3 decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, argued that the original successful citizen initiative(60-40 approval majority) should be voided because it required a constitutional revision which cannot be approved by majority vote. The CA Supreme Court made no reference to this argument in their decision. If they believed that the need-for-a revision argument was sound, wouldn’t they have included this as part of the basis for their decision since that was one of the main arguments presented to them. We can assume from their silence that they did not AT THAT TIME accept the argument that a constitutional revision process was necessary.

  51. Anonymous

    Another interesting ” wrinkle” is that those who brought the case to the CA Supreme Court, which resulted in the 4-3 decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, argued that the original successful citizen initiative(60-40 approval majority) should be voided because it required a constitutional revision which cannot be approved by majority vote. The CA Supreme Court made no reference to this argument in their decision. If they believed that the need-for-a revision argument was sound, wouldn’t they have included this as part of the basis for their decision since that was one of the main arguments presented to them. We can assume from their silence that they did not AT THAT TIME accept the argument that a constitutional revision process was necessary.

  52. Anonymous

    Another interesting ” wrinkle” is that those who brought the case to the CA Supreme Court, which resulted in the 4-3 decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, argued that the original successful citizen initiative(60-40 approval majority) should be voided because it required a constitutional revision which cannot be approved by majority vote. The CA Supreme Court made no reference to this argument in their decision. If they believed that the need-for-a revision argument was sound, wouldn’t they have included this as part of the basis for their decision since that was one of the main arguments presented to them. We can assume from their silence that they did not AT THAT TIME accept the argument that a constitutional revision process was necessary.

  53. Anonymous

    “….support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states”

    Case law in other states(Oregon, for one) addresses the validity of using a constitutional amendment as a mechanism for restricting marriage to a man and a woman. There are also multiple CA case laws regarding when a revision is necessary rather than an amendment.Previous CA Supreme Court decisions determined that revision is necessary when major changes in the functions of CA government were impacted.

  54. Anonymous

    “….support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states”

    Case law in other states(Oregon, for one) addresses the validity of using a constitutional amendment as a mechanism for restricting marriage to a man and a woman. There are also multiple CA case laws regarding when a revision is necessary rather than an amendment.Previous CA Supreme Court decisions determined that revision is necessary when major changes in the functions of CA government were impacted.

  55. Anonymous

    “….support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states”

    Case law in other states(Oregon, for one) addresses the validity of using a constitutional amendment as a mechanism for restricting marriage to a man and a woman. There are also multiple CA case laws regarding when a revision is necessary rather than an amendment.Previous CA Supreme Court decisions determined that revision is necessary when major changes in the functions of CA government were impacted.

  56. Anonymous

    “….support for the constitutional amendment process rather than revision in multiple case law of other states”

    Case law in other states(Oregon, for one) addresses the validity of using a constitutional amendment as a mechanism for restricting marriage to a man and a woman. There are also multiple CA case laws regarding when a revision is necessary rather than an amendment.Previous CA Supreme Court decisions determined that revision is necessary when major changes in the functions of CA government were impacted.

  57. Another view

    “I want to reiterate what I said a few days ago. Backers of proposition 8 point to the fact that they have now won twice, votes before the voters, as though that were somehow to stand up for all times. They of course will not acknowledge that the first time it came before the voters, the ban passed by large margins and this time it was a nail biter. I would wager to guess the next time this comes before the voters, it probably will not pass. Time is not on the side of the opponents of Proposition 8. They were able to win this largely through peripheral issues and mobilizing a diverse coalition of opponents. However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality.”

    To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. Neither is the CA Supreme Ct, which is out of step with most of the country. Dangerous position to take, that OKs legislating from the bench. Wait until they legislate something you don’t like. You criticize Ralph Nadar for failing to compromise, but aren’t willing to engage in compromise yourself when it comes to accepting the majority opinion on Prop 8, which has gone through two election processes. Do you only accept majority rule when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn’t?

    If this was truly about equal rights, then detractors of Prop 8 would be fighting for civil unions that give equal rights. But it is not about equal rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle. And proponents of gay marriage insist the general populace cannot have any other view about gay marriage than their own.

    The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.

  58. Another view

    “I want to reiterate what I said a few days ago. Backers of proposition 8 point to the fact that they have now won twice, votes before the voters, as though that were somehow to stand up for all times. They of course will not acknowledge that the first time it came before the voters, the ban passed by large margins and this time it was a nail biter. I would wager to guess the next time this comes before the voters, it probably will not pass. Time is not on the side of the opponents of Proposition 8. They were able to win this largely through peripheral issues and mobilizing a diverse coalition of opponents. However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality.”

    To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. Neither is the CA Supreme Ct, which is out of step with most of the country. Dangerous position to take, that OKs legislating from the bench. Wait until they legislate something you don’t like. You criticize Ralph Nadar for failing to compromise, but aren’t willing to engage in compromise yourself when it comes to accepting the majority opinion on Prop 8, which has gone through two election processes. Do you only accept majority rule when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn’t?

    If this was truly about equal rights, then detractors of Prop 8 would be fighting for civil unions that give equal rights. But it is not about equal rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle. And proponents of gay marriage insist the general populace cannot have any other view about gay marriage than their own.

    The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.

  59. Another view

    “I want to reiterate what I said a few days ago. Backers of proposition 8 point to the fact that they have now won twice, votes before the voters, as though that were somehow to stand up for all times. They of course will not acknowledge that the first time it came before the voters, the ban passed by large margins and this time it was a nail biter. I would wager to guess the next time this comes before the voters, it probably will not pass. Time is not on the side of the opponents of Proposition 8. They were able to win this largely through peripheral issues and mobilizing a diverse coalition of opponents. However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality.”

    To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. Neither is the CA Supreme Ct, which is out of step with most of the country. Dangerous position to take, that OKs legislating from the bench. Wait until they legislate something you don’t like. You criticize Ralph Nadar for failing to compromise, but aren’t willing to engage in compromise yourself when it comes to accepting the majority opinion on Prop 8, which has gone through two election processes. Do you only accept majority rule when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn’t?

    If this was truly about equal rights, then detractors of Prop 8 would be fighting for civil unions that give equal rights. But it is not about equal rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle. And proponents of gay marriage insist the general populace cannot have any other view about gay marriage than their own.

    The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.

  60. Another view

    “I want to reiterate what I said a few days ago. Backers of proposition 8 point to the fact that they have now won twice, votes before the voters, as though that were somehow to stand up for all times. They of course will not acknowledge that the first time it came before the voters, the ban passed by large margins and this time it was a nail biter. I would wager to guess the next time this comes before the voters, it probably will not pass. Time is not on the side of the opponents of Proposition 8. They were able to win this largely through peripheral issues and mobilizing a diverse coalition of opponents. However, the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue. It is only a matter of time before the voters as a majority support the right of marriage equality.”

    To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. Neither is the CA Supreme Ct, which is out of step with most of the country. Dangerous position to take, that OKs legislating from the bench. Wait until they legislate something you don’t like. You criticize Ralph Nadar for failing to compromise, but aren’t willing to engage in compromise yourself when it comes to accepting the majority opinion on Prop 8, which has gone through two election processes. Do you only accept majority rule when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn’t?

    If this was truly about equal rights, then detractors of Prop 8 would be fighting for civil unions that give equal rights. But it is not about equal rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle. And proponents of gay marriage insist the general populace cannot have any other view about gay marriage than their own.

    The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.

  61. David M. Greenwald

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the minority or a few when it comes to infringement of rights. That’s why the constitution was set up to be above the will of the majority and to require supermajority votes to amendment and the courts are separated from the direct will of the people as well.

  62. David M. Greenwald

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the minority or a few when it comes to infringement of rights. That’s why the constitution was set up to be above the will of the majority and to require supermajority votes to amendment and the courts are separated from the direct will of the people as well.

  63. David M. Greenwald

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the minority or a few when it comes to infringement of rights. That’s why the constitution was set up to be above the will of the majority and to require supermajority votes to amendment and the courts are separated from the direct will of the people as well.

  64. David M. Greenwald

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the minority or a few when it comes to infringement of rights. That’s why the constitution was set up to be above the will of the majority and to require supermajority votes to amendment and the courts are separated from the direct will of the people as well.

  65. By Any Other Name

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    “That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting.”

    This is not about rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle.

  66. By Any Other Name

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    “That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting.”

    This is not about rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle.

  67. By Any Other Name

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    “That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting.”

    This is not about rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle.

  68. By Any Other Name

    “To put it succinctly, you are not willing to accept majority rule. “

    “That is correct. I do not believe that rights should be subject to voting.”

    This is not about rights, it is about legitimizing a lifestyle.

  69. another view

    “The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.”

    In another generation or so, your argument against same-sex civil marriage will also be silly to most of the populace.

  70. another view

    “The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.”

    In another generation or so, your argument against same-sex civil marriage will also be silly to most of the populace.

  71. another view

    “The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.”

    In another generation or so, your argument against same-sex civil marriage will also be silly to most of the populace.

  72. another view

    “The divorce argument is silly, just as the analogy to slavery. Insist on civil unions that give equal rights, and I’m with you. But don’t mess with the traditional definition of marriage.”

    In another generation or so, your argument against same-sex civil marriage will also be silly to most of the populace.

  73. Anonymous

    “… the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue.”

    The “trajectory” of increasing energy consumption and profligate consumerism looks like it is taking a serious downward turn. We all have seen what has happened by relying on the unchanging “trajectory” of increasing home “values”;so much for the immutability of “trajectories”! As this current youth generation matures, they may very well change their views on whether our society’s traditional definition of marriage should be discarded.

  74. Anonymous

    “… the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue.”

    The “trajectory” of increasing energy consumption and profligate consumerism looks like it is taking a serious downward turn. We all have seen what has happened by relying on the unchanging “trajectory” of increasing home “values”;so much for the immutability of “trajectories”! As this current youth generation matures, they may very well change their views on whether our society’s traditional definition of marriage should be discarded.

  75. Anonymous

    “… the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue.”

    The “trajectory” of increasing energy consumption and profligate consumerism looks like it is taking a serious downward turn. We all have seen what has happened by relying on the unchanging “trajectory” of increasing home “values”;so much for the immutability of “trajectories”! As this current youth generation matures, they may very well change their views on whether our society’s traditional definition of marriage should be discarded.

  76. Anonymous

    “… the impact of the narrow victory suggests the trajectory of public opinion on this issue.”

    The “trajectory” of increasing energy consumption and profligate consumerism looks like it is taking a serious downward turn. We all have seen what has happened by relying on the unchanging “trajectory” of increasing home “values”;so much for the immutability of “trajectories”! As this current youth generation matures, they may very well change their views on whether our society’s traditional definition of marriage should be discarded.

  77. Anonymous

    We have also seen societal trajectories for the abolition of slavery and for increased rights for women (to own property, to vote). Do you think that the current young generation is going to mature and change its mind about those things? It hasn’t seemed to happen yet.

    Your comparison to “profligate consumerism” isn’t applicable, here.

  78. Anonymous

    We have also seen societal trajectories for the abolition of slavery and for increased rights for women (to own property, to vote). Do you think that the current young generation is going to mature and change its mind about those things? It hasn’t seemed to happen yet.

    Your comparison to “profligate consumerism” isn’t applicable, here.

  79. Anonymous

    We have also seen societal trajectories for the abolition of slavery and for increased rights for women (to own property, to vote). Do you think that the current young generation is going to mature and change its mind about those things? It hasn’t seemed to happen yet.

    Your comparison to “profligate consumerism” isn’t applicable, here.

  80. Anonymous

    We have also seen societal trajectories for the abolition of slavery and for increased rights for women (to own property, to vote). Do you think that the current young generation is going to mature and change its mind about those things? It hasn’t seemed to happen yet.

    Your comparison to “profligate consumerism” isn’t applicable, here.

  81. David M. Greenwald

    Anonymous 8:37: your response shows you don’t really get it. What you don’t get is people like me, I’m 35, we have friends who are gay, we have family members who are gay, we have colleagues who are gay, we know gay people, when you watch the ads on TV warning that children are going to learn about gays and imply that they will ask questions, that is not threatening to people my age and younger. That’s not a maturity issue.

  82. David M. Greenwald

    Anonymous 8:37: your response shows you don’t really get it. What you don’t get is people like me, I’m 35, we have friends who are gay, we have family members who are gay, we have colleagues who are gay, we know gay people, when you watch the ads on TV warning that children are going to learn about gays and imply that they will ask questions, that is not threatening to people my age and younger. That’s not a maturity issue.

  83. David M. Greenwald

    Anonymous 8:37: your response shows you don’t really get it. What you don’t get is people like me, I’m 35, we have friends who are gay, we have family members who are gay, we have colleagues who are gay, we know gay people, when you watch the ads on TV warning that children are going to learn about gays and imply that they will ask questions, that is not threatening to people my age and younger. That’s not a maturity issue.

  84. David M. Greenwald

    Anonymous 8:37: your response shows you don’t really get it. What you don’t get is people like me, I’m 35, we have friends who are gay, we have family members who are gay, we have colleagues who are gay, we know gay people, when you watch the ads on TV warning that children are going to learn about gays and imply that they will ask questions, that is not threatening to people my age and younger. That’s not a maturity issue.

  85. Anonymous

    DPD: I’m afraid that perhaps YOU do not get it. My point was that “trajectory” curves extrapolated into the future do not necessarily predict that future. It is just as(perhaps more)likely that the “trajectory” curve for general public acceptance may not continue on the same slope but will level off at full and equal legal rights for same-sex unions while retaining society’s traditional definition of marriage.

  86. Anonymous

    DPD: I’m afraid that perhaps YOU do not get it. My point was that “trajectory” curves extrapolated into the future do not necessarily predict that future. It is just as(perhaps more)likely that the “trajectory” curve for general public acceptance may not continue on the same slope but will level off at full and equal legal rights for same-sex unions while retaining society’s traditional definition of marriage.

  87. Anonymous

    DPD: I’m afraid that perhaps YOU do not get it. My point was that “trajectory” curves extrapolated into the future do not necessarily predict that future. It is just as(perhaps more)likely that the “trajectory” curve for general public acceptance may not continue on the same slope but will level off at full and equal legal rights for same-sex unions while retaining society’s traditional definition of marriage.

  88. Anonymous

    DPD: I’m afraid that perhaps YOU do not get it. My point was that “trajectory” curves extrapolated into the future do not necessarily predict that future. It is just as(perhaps more)likely that the “trajectory” curve for general public acceptance may not continue on the same slope but will level off at full and equal legal rights for same-sex unions while retaining society’s traditional definition of marriage.

  89. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t agree. This country has always moved in the direction of more liberty, more rights, and more freedom. I see no indication that is going to change. Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points. Time is not on your side on this issue. You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal. You have galvanized support for Prop 8.

  90. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t agree. This country has always moved in the direction of more liberty, more rights, and more freedom. I see no indication that is going to change. Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points. Time is not on your side on this issue. You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal. You have galvanized support for Prop 8.

  91. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t agree. This country has always moved in the direction of more liberty, more rights, and more freedom. I see no indication that is going to change. Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points. Time is not on your side on this issue. You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal. You have galvanized support for Prop 8.

  92. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t agree. This country has always moved in the direction of more liberty, more rights, and more freedom. I see no indication that is going to change. Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points. Time is not on your side on this issue. You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal. You have galvanized support for Prop 8.

  93. David M. Greenwald

    This interesting analysis from FiveThirtyEight.com that demonstrates that there was a broader generational effect than a racial effect…

    Prop 8 Myths

    Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

    Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure’s margin of victory.

    To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

    Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

    Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

    Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

    At the end of the day, Prop 8’s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

    The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that — and there’s no polite way to put this — the older voters aren’t going to be around for all that much longer, and they’ll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish — California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

  94. David M. Greenwald

    This interesting analysis from FiveThirtyEight.com that demonstrates that there was a broader generational effect than a racial effect…

    Prop 8 Myths

    Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

    Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure’s margin of victory.

    To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

    Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

    Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

    Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

    At the end of the day, Prop 8’s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

    The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that — and there’s no polite way to put this — the older voters aren’t going to be around for all that much longer, and they’ll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish — California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

  95. David M. Greenwald

    This interesting analysis from FiveThirtyEight.com that demonstrates that there was a broader generational effect than a racial effect…

    Prop 8 Myths

    Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

    Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure’s margin of victory.

    To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

    Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

    Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

    Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

    At the end of the day, Prop 8’s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

    The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that — and there’s no polite way to put this — the older voters aren’t going to be around for all that much longer, and they’ll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish — California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

  96. David M. Greenwald

    This interesting analysis from FiveThirtyEight.com that demonstrates that there was a broader generational effect than a racial effect…

    Prop 8 Myths

    Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

    Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure’s margin of victory.

    To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

    Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

    Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

    Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

    At the end of the day, Prop 8’s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

    The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that — and there’s no polite way to put this — the older voters aren’t going to be around for all that much longer, and they’ll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish — California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

  97. Anonymous

    “You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal…”

    Unlike the above statement, I do not presume to know why the majority of CA voters chose to vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
    All I know is that they they took the opportunity to choose and they did so.

  98. Anonymous

    “You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal…”

    Unlike the above statement, I do not presume to know why the majority of CA voters chose to vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
    All I know is that they they took the opportunity to choose and they did so.

  99. Anonymous

    “You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal…”

    Unlike the above statement, I do not presume to know why the majority of CA voters chose to vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
    All I know is that they they took the opportunity to choose and they did so.

  100. Anonymous

    “You were able to win by diverting from the main message not because most people did not want gay marriage to be legal…”

    Unlike the above statement, I do not presume to know why the majority of CA voters chose to vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
    All I know is that they they took the opportunity to choose and they did so.

  101. may be a while...

    “Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points.”

    I don’t think you can do simple math to draw the conclusion that support for gay marriage is increasing this much. First we must consider that the youth vote will likely not be as strong next election. Also, it is likely that GOP voters will gain motivation in this state due to the mess caused by decades of overspending by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress will add to this motivation. Also, I expect the passing of prop 8 to motivate heavy campaign spending for continued opposition to additional initiatives.

    It is more likely that the gay marriage opportunity has come and gone for at least 12 years unless gay and progressive activists can get the court to overturn the will of the people again.

    It is ironic that the failure of the gay movement this time was due to the disingenuous alignment of minorities with the Democrat’s liberal agenda. Liberalism and a progressive San Francisco-style lifestyle is generally not a good fit for the average minority. They voted for prop 8 and will likely continue to do the same.

  102. may be a while...

    “Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points.”

    I don’t think you can do simple math to draw the conclusion that support for gay marriage is increasing this much. First we must consider that the youth vote will likely not be as strong next election. Also, it is likely that GOP voters will gain motivation in this state due to the mess caused by decades of overspending by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress will add to this motivation. Also, I expect the passing of prop 8 to motivate heavy campaign spending for continued opposition to additional initiatives.

    It is more likely that the gay marriage opportunity has come and gone for at least 12 years unless gay and progressive activists can get the court to overturn the will of the people again.

    It is ironic that the failure of the gay movement this time was due to the disingenuous alignment of minorities with the Democrat’s liberal agenda. Liberalism and a progressive San Francisco-style lifestyle is generally not a good fit for the average minority. They voted for prop 8 and will likely continue to do the same.

  103. may be a while...

    “Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points.”

    I don’t think you can do simple math to draw the conclusion that support for gay marriage is increasing this much. First we must consider that the youth vote will likely not be as strong next election. Also, it is likely that GOP voters will gain motivation in this state due to the mess caused by decades of overspending by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress will add to this motivation. Also, I expect the passing of prop 8 to motivate heavy campaign spending for continued opposition to additional initiatives.

    It is more likely that the gay marriage opportunity has come and gone for at least 12 years unless gay and progressive activists can get the court to overturn the will of the people again.

    It is ironic that the failure of the gay movement this time was due to the disingenuous alignment of minorities with the Democrat’s liberal agenda. Liberalism and a progressive San Francisco-style lifestyle is generally not a good fit for the average minority. They voted for prop 8 and will likely continue to do the same.

  104. may be a while...

    “Prop 8 passed by just 4 percentage points, its predecessor passed by 22 points.”

    I don’t think you can do simple math to draw the conclusion that support for gay marriage is increasing this much. First we must consider that the youth vote will likely not be as strong next election. Also, it is likely that GOP voters will gain motivation in this state due to the mess caused by decades of overspending by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress will add to this motivation. Also, I expect the passing of prop 8 to motivate heavy campaign spending for continued opposition to additional initiatives.

    It is more likely that the gay marriage opportunity has come and gone for at least 12 years unless gay and progressive activists can get the court to overturn the will of the people again.

    It is ironic that the failure of the gay movement this time was due to the disingenuous alignment of minorities with the Democrat’s liberal agenda. Liberalism and a progressive San Francisco-style lifestyle is generally not a good fit for the average minority. They voted for prop 8 and will likely continue to do the same.

  105. Anonymous

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

  106. Anonymous

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

  107. Anonymous

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

  108. Anonymous

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

  109. wdf

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

    Use of marijuana is mostly recreational, as is use of tobacco and alcohol. It may be reasonably argued that use of these substances can have a documented harmful effect on other people (second hand smoke, DUI, etc.). I don’t think same sex marriage fits these descriptors.

    Same-sex relationships are as mature and loving relationships as long-term marriages. They are between consenting adults. I don’t see any overall negative impact on those in the relationship or outside that relationship.

    If I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.

    If anything, all I see is overall progressive acceptance of gay relationships in society. Do you argue that we have peaked in our acceptance? If so, what other indicators tell you that?

    If this is an issue of personal maturity, then at what age should I anticipate becoming more intolerant of same-sex relationships? I don’t think I’m there, yet…

  110. wdf

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

    Use of marijuana is mostly recreational, as is use of tobacco and alcohol. It may be reasonably argued that use of these substances can have a documented harmful effect on other people (second hand smoke, DUI, etc.). I don’t think same sex marriage fits these descriptors.

    Same-sex relationships are as mature and loving relationships as long-term marriages. They are between consenting adults. I don’t see any overall negative impact on those in the relationship or outside that relationship.

    If I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.

    If anything, all I see is overall progressive acceptance of gay relationships in society. Do you argue that we have peaked in our acceptance? If so, what other indicators tell you that?

    If this is an issue of personal maturity, then at what age should I anticipate becoming more intolerant of same-sex relationships? I don’t think I’m there, yet…

  111. wdf

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

    Use of marijuana is mostly recreational, as is use of tobacco and alcohol. It may be reasonably argued that use of these substances can have a documented harmful effect on other people (second hand smoke, DUI, etc.). I don’t think same sex marriage fits these descriptors.

    Same-sex relationships are as mature and loving relationships as long-term marriages. They are between consenting adults. I don’t see any overall negative impact on those in the relationship or outside that relationship.

    If I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.

    If anything, all I see is overall progressive acceptance of gay relationships in society. Do you argue that we have peaked in our acceptance? If so, what other indicators tell you that?

    If this is an issue of personal maturity, then at what age should I anticipate becoming more intolerant of same-sex relationships? I don’t think I’m there, yet…

  112. wdf

    The past 50 year trajectory curve concerning our society’s view on citizen “rights” concerning marijuana may be instructive. The trajectory curve of the 60s and 70s suggested something quite different from what exists today. Could this portion of the electorate have altered its views as it matured?

    Use of marijuana is mostly recreational, as is use of tobacco and alcohol. It may be reasonably argued that use of these substances can have a documented harmful effect on other people (second hand smoke, DUI, etc.). I don’t think same sex marriage fits these descriptors.

    Same-sex relationships are as mature and loving relationships as long-term marriages. They are between consenting adults. I don’t see any overall negative impact on those in the relationship or outside that relationship.

    If I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.

    If anything, all I see is overall progressive acceptance of gay relationships in society. Do you argue that we have peaked in our acceptance? If so, what other indicators tell you that?

    If this is an issue of personal maturity, then at what age should I anticipate becoming more intolerant of same-sex relationships? I don’t think I’m there, yet…

  113. Anonymous

    Is being gay a choice or a difference? If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?

    The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority. Just like the CRA which sounded good at the time (giving subsidized home loans to low income families); we fail to consider the nuance of unintended consequences resulting from pushing a social agenda before society has had time to adjust.

    For example, what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man? And forget the argument about the sate of parenting today… two wrongs do not make a right. What do we know about the impact to young people struggling with their own sexuality when a gay married lifestyle is considered completely equal to and “same” as a man-woman married lifestyle? Will confused people seek the path of least resistance instead of dealing with real causes? For example, will a young girl that had been sexually molested chose a lesbian life because of her distrust of men?

    There is imperial data available indicating women would more likely gravitate toward a same-sex partner if society was more accepting. The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.

    On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? What about child custody laws… how do we identify the “nurturing” parent to give preference to? Also, what about the argument about gay marriage and homosexuality acceptance being promulgated in school curricula, or by independent-minded educators? This is a valid concern and everyone knows it. Gay marriage would have to be explained because of the push for gays and progressives to make it equal in every way to man-wife marriage. How do we explain procreation as a biological as a cultural process that takes a male (husband) and female (wife)? How do we explain homosexuality as practiced by the human animal compared to all other animals? How do we explain this to our children as a new type of normal? If you are non-religious this may not pose a problem, but most of the population of the US claims a religious orientation and there are zero mainstream religions that support gay marriage from a religious perspective.

    Just about every person without an agenda and with a brain is asking himself/herself these type of questions, but failing to speak out for fear of the mean and dispiriting “homophobe” label being applied. It is unfortunate, because the discussion about these and other social issues are key to truly progressing our society.

  114. Anonymous

    Is being gay a choice or a difference? If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?

    The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority. Just like the CRA which sounded good at the time (giving subsidized home loans to low income families); we fail to consider the nuance of unintended consequences resulting from pushing a social agenda before society has had time to adjust.

    For example, what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man? And forget the argument about the sate of parenting today… two wrongs do not make a right. What do we know about the impact to young people struggling with their own sexuality when a gay married lifestyle is considered completely equal to and “same” as a man-woman married lifestyle? Will confused people seek the path of least resistance instead of dealing with real causes? For example, will a young girl that had been sexually molested chose a lesbian life because of her distrust of men?

    There is imperial data available indicating women would more likely gravitate toward a same-sex partner if society was more accepting. The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.

    On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? What about child custody laws… how do we identify the “nurturing” parent to give preference to? Also, what about the argument about gay marriage and homosexuality acceptance being promulgated in school curricula, or by independent-minded educators? This is a valid concern and everyone knows it. Gay marriage would have to be explained because of the push for gays and progressives to make it equal in every way to man-wife marriage. How do we explain procreation as a biological as a cultural process that takes a male (husband) and female (wife)? How do we explain homosexuality as practiced by the human animal compared to all other animals? How do we explain this to our children as a new type of normal? If you are non-religious this may not pose a problem, but most of the population of the US claims a religious orientation and there are zero mainstream religions that support gay marriage from a religious perspective.

    Just about every person without an agenda and with a brain is asking himself/herself these type of questions, but failing to speak out for fear of the mean and dispiriting “homophobe” label being applied. It is unfortunate, because the discussion about these and other social issues are key to truly progressing our society.

  115. Anonymous

    Is being gay a choice or a difference? If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?

    The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority. Just like the CRA which sounded good at the time (giving subsidized home loans to low income families); we fail to consider the nuance of unintended consequences resulting from pushing a social agenda before society has had time to adjust.

    For example, what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man? And forget the argument about the sate of parenting today… two wrongs do not make a right. What do we know about the impact to young people struggling with their own sexuality when a gay married lifestyle is considered completely equal to and “same” as a man-woman married lifestyle? Will confused people seek the path of least resistance instead of dealing with real causes? For example, will a young girl that had been sexually molested chose a lesbian life because of her distrust of men?

    There is imperial data available indicating women would more likely gravitate toward a same-sex partner if society was more accepting. The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.

    On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? What about child custody laws… how do we identify the “nurturing” parent to give preference to? Also, what about the argument about gay marriage and homosexuality acceptance being promulgated in school curricula, or by independent-minded educators? This is a valid concern and everyone knows it. Gay marriage would have to be explained because of the push for gays and progressives to make it equal in every way to man-wife marriage. How do we explain procreation as a biological as a cultural process that takes a male (husband) and female (wife)? How do we explain homosexuality as practiced by the human animal compared to all other animals? How do we explain this to our children as a new type of normal? If you are non-religious this may not pose a problem, but most of the population of the US claims a religious orientation and there are zero mainstream religions that support gay marriage from a religious perspective.

    Just about every person without an agenda and with a brain is asking himself/herself these type of questions, but failing to speak out for fear of the mean and dispiriting “homophobe” label being applied. It is unfortunate, because the discussion about these and other social issues are key to truly progressing our society.

  116. Anonymous

    Is being gay a choice or a difference? If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?

    The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority. Just like the CRA which sounded good at the time (giving subsidized home loans to low income families); we fail to consider the nuance of unintended consequences resulting from pushing a social agenda before society has had time to adjust.

    For example, what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man? And forget the argument about the sate of parenting today… two wrongs do not make a right. What do we know about the impact to young people struggling with their own sexuality when a gay married lifestyle is considered completely equal to and “same” as a man-woman married lifestyle? Will confused people seek the path of least resistance instead of dealing with real causes? For example, will a young girl that had been sexually molested chose a lesbian life because of her distrust of men?

    There is imperial data available indicating women would more likely gravitate toward a same-sex partner if society was more accepting. The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.

    On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? What about child custody laws… how do we identify the “nurturing” parent to give preference to? Also, what about the argument about gay marriage and homosexuality acceptance being promulgated in school curricula, or by independent-minded educators? This is a valid concern and everyone knows it. Gay marriage would have to be explained because of the push for gays and progressives to make it equal in every way to man-wife marriage. How do we explain procreation as a biological as a cultural process that takes a male (husband) and female (wife)? How do we explain homosexuality as practiced by the human animal compared to all other animals? How do we explain this to our children as a new type of normal? If you are non-religious this may not pose a problem, but most of the population of the US claims a religious orientation and there are zero mainstream religions that support gay marriage from a religious perspective.

    Just about every person without an agenda and with a brain is asking himself/herself these type of questions, but failing to speak out for fear of the mean and dispiriting “homophobe” label being applied. It is unfortunate, because the discussion about these and other social issues are key to truly progressing our society.

  117. Anonymous

    “On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples?”

    It seems that the Catholic Church can legitimately refuse to recognize divorce. Why can’t churches refuse to recognize same-sex marriages? I don’t see a problem here.

  118. Anonymous

    “On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples?”

    It seems that the Catholic Church can legitimately refuse to recognize divorce. Why can’t churches refuse to recognize same-sex marriages? I don’t see a problem here.

  119. Anonymous

    “On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples?”

    It seems that the Catholic Church can legitimately refuse to recognize divorce. Why can’t churches refuse to recognize same-sex marriages? I don’t see a problem here.

  120. Anonymous

    “On the legal front, are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples?”

    It seems that the Catholic Church can legitimately refuse to recognize divorce. Why can’t churches refuse to recognize same-sex marriages? I don’t see a problem here.

  121. Anonymous

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Still doesn’t answer the question, why create a separate label?

  122. Anonymous

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Still doesn’t answer the question, why create a separate label?

  123. Anonymous

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Still doesn’t answer the question, why create a separate label?

  124. Anonymous

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Still doesn’t answer the question, why create a separate label?

  125. David M. Greenwald

    “If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? “

    I would argue that sexual preference is probably both a choice and a difference. I suspect that some people I know have chosen the lifestyle for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, and there is growing scientific evidence, that there are genetic predispositions at play as well.

    In terms of my general belief, I rely on the consenting adults model of behavior. I generally believe that consenting adults acting on their own accord can make the decisions they wish to make without the interference of government until and unless their choices can be shown to harm others (not themselves but others.

    In terms of polygamy, I would suggest that you lose a lot of the “consenting” and a bit of the “adult” parts of those equations.

    To me, I fail to see why it matters to anyone if the state wants to recognize as a marriage the partnership between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.

    In terms of your latter question:

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Probably from the same rationale by which you would wish to deprive them of the label of marriage. After all if it is sameness in everything but the label, why does it matter to you if they get the label? But it does matter to you…

    “The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority.”

    I don’t think you’ve made the case that it is social engineering. I think it is the desire of those who love someone of the same sex to have the same things that those of us who love someone from the opposite sex take for granted.

    “are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? “

    No they would not. Nor would churches or religious organizations be required to marry same-sex partners. Just as a Catholic Church is not required to marry a Jewish couple.

    “what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man?”

    I don’t know if they can or cannot. I suspect that from an ideal perspective, a two-sex marriage is most healthy for children. But, let us now consider that many two-sex marriages end in divorce, many are completely dysfunctional, many fathers are dead-beats, many mothers have their own issues… etc. So under real conditions would a loving and stable same-sex marriage be a better situation than an unstable two-sex marriage or single parent households, probably. We can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, or we can look to ways that would improve situations. I know a lot of very loving same-sex marriages where the children are raised in a much healthier environment than in a lot of two-sex marriages.

    Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point. When we start outlawing two-sex marriages and put restrictions because of how messed up they are and how messed up they make their kids, I will consider evidence that perhaps it is better that a child has both gender role models in their lives. As we well know, often other figures can serve as surrogates as well.

    The irony of course is that same sex partners right now do have children and we somehow think it is better that those children are raised by unmarried same sex partnerships than married ones.

    To me this is all ad-hoc reasoning, inventing excuses not to allow people to marry who want to marry and that makes no sense to me.

  126. David M. Greenwald

    “If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? “

    I would argue that sexual preference is probably both a choice and a difference. I suspect that some people I know have chosen the lifestyle for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, and there is growing scientific evidence, that there are genetic predispositions at play as well.

    In terms of my general belief, I rely on the consenting adults model of behavior. I generally believe that consenting adults acting on their own accord can make the decisions they wish to make without the interference of government until and unless their choices can be shown to harm others (not themselves but others.

    In terms of polygamy, I would suggest that you lose a lot of the “consenting” and a bit of the “adult” parts of those equations.

    To me, I fail to see why it matters to anyone if the state wants to recognize as a marriage the partnership between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.

    In terms of your latter question:

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Probably from the same rationale by which you would wish to deprive them of the label of marriage. After all if it is sameness in everything but the label, why does it matter to you if they get the label? But it does matter to you…

    “The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority.”

    I don’t think you’ve made the case that it is social engineering. I think it is the desire of those who love someone of the same sex to have the same things that those of us who love someone from the opposite sex take for granted.

    “are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? “

    No they would not. Nor would churches or religious organizations be required to marry same-sex partners. Just as a Catholic Church is not required to marry a Jewish couple.

    “what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man?”

    I don’t know if they can or cannot. I suspect that from an ideal perspective, a two-sex marriage is most healthy for children. But, let us now consider that many two-sex marriages end in divorce, many are completely dysfunctional, many fathers are dead-beats, many mothers have their own issues… etc. So under real conditions would a loving and stable same-sex marriage be a better situation than an unstable two-sex marriage or single parent households, probably. We can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, or we can look to ways that would improve situations. I know a lot of very loving same-sex marriages where the children are raised in a much healthier environment than in a lot of two-sex marriages.

    Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point. When we start outlawing two-sex marriages and put restrictions because of how messed up they are and how messed up they make their kids, I will consider evidence that perhaps it is better that a child has both gender role models in their lives. As we well know, often other figures can serve as surrogates as well.

    The irony of course is that same sex partners right now do have children and we somehow think it is better that those children are raised by unmarried same sex partnerships than married ones.

    To me this is all ad-hoc reasoning, inventing excuses not to allow people to marry who want to marry and that makes no sense to me.

  127. David M. Greenwald

    “If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? “

    I would argue that sexual preference is probably both a choice and a difference. I suspect that some people I know have chosen the lifestyle for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, and there is growing scientific evidence, that there are genetic predispositions at play as well.

    In terms of my general belief, I rely on the consenting adults model of behavior. I generally believe that consenting adults acting on their own accord can make the decisions they wish to make without the interference of government until and unless their choices can be shown to harm others (not themselves but others.

    In terms of polygamy, I would suggest that you lose a lot of the “consenting” and a bit of the “adult” parts of those equations.

    To me, I fail to see why it matters to anyone if the state wants to recognize as a marriage the partnership between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.

    In terms of your latter question:

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Probably from the same rationale by which you would wish to deprive them of the label of marriage. After all if it is sameness in everything but the label, why does it matter to you if they get the label? But it does matter to you…

    “The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority.”

    I don’t think you’ve made the case that it is social engineering. I think it is the desire of those who love someone of the same sex to have the same things that those of us who love someone from the opposite sex take for granted.

    “are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? “

    No they would not. Nor would churches or religious organizations be required to marry same-sex partners. Just as a Catholic Church is not required to marry a Jewish couple.

    “what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man?”

    I don’t know if they can or cannot. I suspect that from an ideal perspective, a two-sex marriage is most healthy for children. But, let us now consider that many two-sex marriages end in divorce, many are completely dysfunctional, many fathers are dead-beats, many mothers have their own issues… etc. So under real conditions would a loving and stable same-sex marriage be a better situation than an unstable two-sex marriage or single parent households, probably. We can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, or we can look to ways that would improve situations. I know a lot of very loving same-sex marriages where the children are raised in a much healthier environment than in a lot of two-sex marriages.

    Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point. When we start outlawing two-sex marriages and put restrictions because of how messed up they are and how messed up they make their kids, I will consider evidence that perhaps it is better that a child has both gender role models in their lives. As we well know, often other figures can serve as surrogates as well.

    The irony of course is that same sex partners right now do have children and we somehow think it is better that those children are raised by unmarried same sex partnerships than married ones.

    To me this is all ad-hoc reasoning, inventing excuses not to allow people to marry who want to marry and that makes no sense to me.

  128. David M. Greenwald

    “If it is a choice, then what is the difference between supporting polygamy (multiple-partner marriage) and same-sex marriage? “

    I would argue that sexual preference is probably both a choice and a difference. I suspect that some people I know have chosen the lifestyle for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, and there is growing scientific evidence, that there are genetic predispositions at play as well.

    In terms of my general belief, I rely on the consenting adults model of behavior. I generally believe that consenting adults acting on their own accord can make the decisions they wish to make without the interference of government until and unless their choices can be shown to harm others (not themselves but others.

    In terms of polygamy, I would suggest that you lose a lot of the “consenting” and a bit of the “adult” parts of those equations.

    To me, I fail to see why it matters to anyone if the state wants to recognize as a marriage the partnership between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.

    In terms of your latter question:

    “If it is a difference, then why not accept civil unions that provide everything except a label of “sameness” with man-wife marriage?”

    Probably from the same rationale by which you would wish to deprive them of the label of marriage. After all if it is sameness in everything but the label, why does it matter to you if they get the label? But it does matter to you…

    “The push for gay marriage is social engineering from a vocal minority.”

    I don’t think you’ve made the case that it is social engineering. I think it is the desire of those who love someone of the same sex to have the same things that those of us who love someone from the opposite sex take for granted.

    “are church marriage encounter groups going to have to allow gay married couples? “

    No they would not. Nor would churches or religious organizations be required to marry same-sex partners. Just as a Catholic Church is not required to marry a Jewish couple.

    “what do we know about a generation of children, conceived artificially or adopted, raised by same-sex parents? Can a lesbian couple provide a boy with the tools he needs to become a stable and well-adjusted man?”

    I don’t know if they can or cannot. I suspect that from an ideal perspective, a two-sex marriage is most healthy for children. But, let us now consider that many two-sex marriages end in divorce, many are completely dysfunctional, many fathers are dead-beats, many mothers have their own issues… etc. So under real conditions would a loving and stable same-sex marriage be a better situation than an unstable two-sex marriage or single parent households, probably. We can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, or we can look to ways that would improve situations. I know a lot of very loving same-sex marriages where the children are raised in a much healthier environment than in a lot of two-sex marriages.

    Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point. When we start outlawing two-sex marriages and put restrictions because of how messed up they are and how messed up they make their kids, I will consider evidence that perhaps it is better that a child has both gender role models in their lives. As we well know, often other figures can serve as surrogates as well.

    The irony of course is that same sex partners right now do have children and we somehow think it is better that those children are raised by unmarried same sex partnerships than married ones.

    To me this is all ad-hoc reasoning, inventing excuses not to allow people to marry who want to marry and that makes no sense to me.

  129. Anonymous

    “Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point.”

    So, do we expect gays not to divorce? Do you have any evidence that the level of “dysfunction” in gay marriage households would be less than in households with the standard-issue husband and wife?

    Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage? I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.

    You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda. More ad-hoc reasoning…

  130. Anonymous

    “Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point.”

    So, do we expect gays not to divorce? Do you have any evidence that the level of “dysfunction” in gay marriage households would be less than in households with the standard-issue husband and wife?

    Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage? I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.

    You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda. More ad-hoc reasoning…

  131. Anonymous

    “Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point.”

    So, do we expect gays not to divorce? Do you have any evidence that the level of “dysfunction” in gay marriage households would be less than in households with the standard-issue husband and wife?

    Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage? I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.

    You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda. More ad-hoc reasoning…

  132. Anonymous

    “Someone said divorce is the besides point, frankly I think it is exactly the point.”

    So, do we expect gays not to divorce? Do you have any evidence that the level of “dysfunction” in gay marriage households would be less than in households with the standard-issue husband and wife?

    Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage? I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.

    You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda. More ad-hoc reasoning…

  133. David M. Greenwald

    “So, do we expect gays not to divorce?”

    I don’t think anyone said or implied that. Just pointing out that two-sex marriage is hardly ideallic and you seem to be hold potential flaws against gay marriages but not two-sex marriages.

    “Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage?”

    I’m not sure why you believe that. I’m obviously married to a woman and happy to have had the opportunity to marry the person I wanted to.

    “I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.”

    I actually think that’s the point. Gays like everyone else, why not have the same opportunities to marry like everyone else and the same opportunities to either succeed or fail at marriage as anyone else?

    “You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda”

    I was not really intending to address every point you made, nor did I really understand that particular point. You seem to believe that gay marriage is going to reduce the rate of marriage for two sex couples and thus reduce the birth rate? I think most gay people these days are either trying to work out their own personal issues with their sexuality or in their own relationships. I don’t see marriage law changing that a whole lot. So I would guess that it would be birth rate neutral.

  134. David M. Greenwald

    “So, do we expect gays not to divorce?”

    I don’t think anyone said or implied that. Just pointing out that two-sex marriage is hardly ideallic and you seem to be hold potential flaws against gay marriages but not two-sex marriages.

    “Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage?”

    I’m not sure why you believe that. I’m obviously married to a woman and happy to have had the opportunity to marry the person I wanted to.

    “I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.”

    I actually think that’s the point. Gays like everyone else, why not have the same opportunities to marry like everyone else and the same opportunities to either succeed or fail at marriage as anyone else?

    “You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda”

    I was not really intending to address every point you made, nor did I really understand that particular point. You seem to believe that gay marriage is going to reduce the rate of marriage for two sex couples and thus reduce the birth rate? I think most gay people these days are either trying to work out their own personal issues with their sexuality or in their own relationships. I don’t see marriage law changing that a whole lot. So I would guess that it would be birth rate neutral.

  135. David M. Greenwald

    “So, do we expect gays not to divorce?”

    I don’t think anyone said or implied that. Just pointing out that two-sex marriage is hardly ideallic and you seem to be hold potential flaws against gay marriages but not two-sex marriages.

    “Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage?”

    I’m not sure why you believe that. I’m obviously married to a woman and happy to have had the opportunity to marry the person I wanted to.

    “I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.”

    I actually think that’s the point. Gays like everyone else, why not have the same opportunities to marry like everyone else and the same opportunities to either succeed or fail at marriage as anyone else?

    “You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda”

    I was not really intending to address every point you made, nor did I really understand that particular point. You seem to believe that gay marriage is going to reduce the rate of marriage for two sex couples and thus reduce the birth rate? I think most gay people these days are either trying to work out their own personal issues with their sexuality or in their own relationships. I don’t see marriage law changing that a whole lot. So I would guess that it would be birth rate neutral.

  136. David M. Greenwald

    “So, do we expect gays not to divorce?”

    I don’t think anyone said or implied that. Just pointing out that two-sex marriage is hardly ideallic and you seem to be hold potential flaws against gay marriages but not two-sex marriages.

    “Why do I get the sense that gay marriage supporters believe that somehow gay marriage is the “greener” marriage?”

    I’m not sure why you believe that. I’m obviously married to a woman and happy to have had the opportunity to marry the person I wanted to.

    “I admit that gays and gay couple I know are nice people, but no more or less than the straight people and couples I know.”

    I actually think that’s the point. Gays like everyone else, why not have the same opportunities to marry like everyone else and the same opportunities to either succeed or fail at marriage as anyone else?

    “You failed to respond to any of my points about the impact to straight marriage rates and birth rates. Maybe the reduction in population is an ulterior motive to promote a green agenda”

    I was not really intending to address every point you made, nor did I really understand that particular point. You seem to believe that gay marriage is going to reduce the rate of marriage for two sex couples and thus reduce the birth rate? I think most gay people these days are either trying to work out their own personal issues with their sexuality or in their own relationships. I don’t see marriage law changing that a whole lot. So I would guess that it would be birth rate neutral.

  137. Anonymous

    “if I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.”

    My point,using the marijuana example,is only that it is possible that that the current “youth” vote that reportedly strongly supports the concept of same-sex marriage can change its position in the future, much like the youth vote of the 60’s strongly supported the FULL societal acceptance of marijuana but now 35 years later, may not hold that opinion. The frequently described INEVITABLE trajectory of public opinion to a majority supporting same-sex marriage is no more than conjecture.

  138. Anonymous

    “if I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.”

    My point,using the marijuana example,is only that it is possible that that the current “youth” vote that reportedly strongly supports the concept of same-sex marriage can change its position in the future, much like the youth vote of the 60’s strongly supported the FULL societal acceptance of marijuana but now 35 years later, may not hold that opinion. The frequently described INEVITABLE trajectory of public opinion to a majority supporting same-sex marriage is no more than conjecture.

  139. Anonymous

    “if I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.”

    My point,using the marijuana example,is only that it is possible that that the current “youth” vote that reportedly strongly supports the concept of same-sex marriage can change its position in the future, much like the youth vote of the 60’s strongly supported the FULL societal acceptance of marijuana but now 35 years later, may not hold that opinion. The frequently described INEVITABLE trajectory of public opinion to a majority supporting same-sex marriage is no more than conjecture.

  140. Anonymous

    “if I am missing some key point to your analogy, please enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t get it.”

    My point,using the marijuana example,is only that it is possible that that the current “youth” vote that reportedly strongly supports the concept of same-sex marriage can change its position in the future, much like the youth vote of the 60’s strongly supported the FULL societal acceptance of marijuana but now 35 years later, may not hold that opinion. The frequently described INEVITABLE trajectory of public opinion to a majority supporting same-sex marriage is no more than conjecture.

  141. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t disagree that it is conjecture. Not all conjecture is created equal. It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.

    I would suggest that marijuana in the 1960s was a good deal further from mainstream acceptance than Gay Marriage is now. I’d also suggest that given current trends, the marijuana trend is still moving toward the direction of some sort of decriminalization, albeit at a slower pace.

  142. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t disagree that it is conjecture. Not all conjecture is created equal. It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.

    I would suggest that marijuana in the 1960s was a good deal further from mainstream acceptance than Gay Marriage is now. I’d also suggest that given current trends, the marijuana trend is still moving toward the direction of some sort of decriminalization, albeit at a slower pace.

  143. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t disagree that it is conjecture. Not all conjecture is created equal. It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.

    I would suggest that marijuana in the 1960s was a good deal further from mainstream acceptance than Gay Marriage is now. I’d also suggest that given current trends, the marijuana trend is still moving toward the direction of some sort of decriminalization, albeit at a slower pace.

  144. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t disagree that it is conjecture. Not all conjecture is created equal. It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.

    I would suggest that marijuana in the 1960s was a good deal further from mainstream acceptance than Gay Marriage is now. I’d also suggest that given current trends, the marijuana trend is still moving toward the direction of some sort of decriminalization, albeit at a slower pace.

  145. Anonymous

    “It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.”

    I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.

  146. Anonymous

    “It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.”

    I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.

  147. Anonymous

    “It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.”

    I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.

  148. Anonymous

    “It is conjecture based on current demographic trends.”

    I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.

  149. David M. Greenwald

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters .”

    I think it is a generational issue rather than an age issue here. Growing up with and around gay people has a similar effect that a whole host of people growing up with blacks having full rights.

  150. David M. Greenwald

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters .”

    I think it is a generational issue rather than an age issue here. Growing up with and around gay people has a similar effect that a whole host of people growing up with blacks having full rights.

  151. David M. Greenwald

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters .”

    I think it is a generational issue rather than an age issue here. Growing up with and around gay people has a similar effect that a whole host of people growing up with blacks having full rights.

  152. David M. Greenwald

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters .”

    I think it is a generational issue rather than an age issue here. Growing up with and around gay people has a similar effect that a whole host of people growing up with blacks having full rights.

  153. Rufus

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.”

    I think the point being made is that you’ll know that you’re over the hill when you wake up one day and realize that you can’t tolerate same-sex marriage.

    Until that moment, you still have all of your youthful faculties!

  154. Rufus

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.”

    I think the point being made is that you’ll know that you’re over the hill when you wake up one day and realize that you can’t tolerate same-sex marriage.

    Until that moment, you still have all of your youthful faculties!

  155. Rufus

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.”

    I think the point being made is that you’ll know that you’re over the hill when you wake up one day and realize that you can’t tolerate same-sex marriage.

    Until that moment, you still have all of your youthful faculties!

  156. Rufus

    “I thought that the demographic trend was for an increase percentage of older voters . If voter opinion on resistance to same-sex marriage correlates with greater voter age and the youth voter opinion is open to
    change as one grows older(certainly demonstrated in other contexts), the demographic trend could favor increasing resistance to same-sex marriage.”

    I think the point being made is that you’ll know that you’re over the hill when you wake up one day and realize that you can’t tolerate same-sex marriage.

    Until that moment, you still have all of your youthful faculties!

  157. Remus

    “The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.”

    I don’t see why concern over birthrates should drive this argument. Centuries ago, marriage may have been all about procreating. Today marriage is more typically about the relationship than about the sexual intercourse.

  158. Remus

    “The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.”

    I don’t see why concern over birthrates should drive this argument. Centuries ago, marriage may have been all about procreating. Today marriage is more typically about the relationship than about the sexual intercourse.

  159. Remus

    “The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.”

    I don’t see why concern over birthrates should drive this argument. Centuries ago, marriage may have been all about procreating. Today marriage is more typically about the relationship than about the sexual intercourse.

  160. Remus

    “The marriage rates and birth rates in European countries that legislate complete equality for gays (even with much stronger government incentives for both) are much lower than the US and continue to drop. Certainly there are other reasons for the difference, but there is no question that the legalization of gay marriage correlates with a drop in heterosexual marriages and births.”

    I don’t see why concern over birthrates should drive this argument. Centuries ago, marriage may have been all about procreating. Today marriage is more typically about the relationship than about the sexual intercourse.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for